DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 07/20/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending. Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are amended. Claims 13-15 are new.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghannam et al. U.S. Publication 2019/0241158 (henceforth referred to as Ghannam) in view of Kamiya et al. U.S. Publication 2020/0207312 (henceforth referred to as Kamiya) and Pan CN210507283 (henceforth referred to as Pan).
As to claim 1, (Currently amended) Ghannam teaches a method for initiating a cleaning process of at least one vehicle-side sensor of a vehicle (paragraph [0028] sensor 130) using a control unit (paragraph [0028] computer 110), the method comprising:
receiving ascertained measurement data from at least one surroundings sensor corresponding to surroundings of the vehicle (FIG. 4A paragraph [0060] in decision block 405, the computer determines whether the opacity of the windows 215 exceeds a predetermined threshold. If yes, the process moves to block 410);
checking the surroundings of the vehicle with respect to at least one unit to be protected in the surroundings of the vehicle (paragraph [0061] in decision block 410, the computer 110 determines whether an object 170a, 170b is detected exterior to the vehicle) based on the measurement data and/or the at least one unit to be protected is ascertained based on received data; and
when the at least one unit to be protected is ascertained in the surroundings of the vehicle (ii) initiating a modified cleaning process and/or delaying or preventing initiation of the cleaning process (paragraph [0054] a delayed actuation of fluid dispenser 240 may prevent splashing the object 170a, 170b, e.g., when the vehicle 100 passes by a pedestrian object).
Ghannam differs from the instant claim in failing to teach receiving a cleaning request from at least one requesting unit; (i) generating, using the control unit, control commands to activate at least one of an audio warning unit and a visual warning unit of the vehicle to issue a warning to the at least one unit to be protected.
Kamiya teaches a similar cleaning process (paragraph [0078] cleaner system 100). Kamiya teaches at least one requesting unit (paragraph [0220] the dirt determining 3122 then sends an actuation request signal for requesting operation of the corresponding cleaners to the prohibition determining unit 3121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning process as taught by Ghannam with a requesting unit as taught by Kamiya. It is known in the art to use a requesting unit as it is a known way to transmit/receive messages within a control system.
Pan teaches a vehicle with a cleaning process (paragraph [0004] sanitation vehicles). Pan teaches (i) generating, using the control unit, control commands to activate at least one of an audio warning unit and a visual warning unit of the vehicle to issue a warning to the at least one unit to be protected (paragraph [0025] alarm 32 sounds an alarm to remind pedestrians to avoid the area). Alternatively to Ghannam, Pan teaches (ii) initiating a modified cleaning process and/or delaying or preventing initiation of the cleaning process (paragraph [0025] the machine stops spraying water when a pedestrian is within the detection range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning process as taught by Ghannam with an audio alarm as taught by Pan. It would have been obvious to have an audio alarm in order to warn pedestrians that a spraying process is being performed so that the pedestrians can avoid the area and prevent being sprayed (paragraphs [0005] and [0025]).
As to claim 2, (Currently amended) Kamiya further teaches:
generating the cleaning request using the at least one requesting unit as a vehicle-external operator, a vehicle-internal passenger, a vehicle-external control unit, and/or a vehicle-internal control unit (FIG. 21 paragraph [0219] the dirt determining unit 3122 is part of the cleaner control unit 116); and
receiving the cleaning request using the control unit (paragraph [0220] the dirt determining 3122 then sends an actuation request signal for requesting operation of the corresponding cleaners to the prohibition determining unit 3121. This action is performed within the cleaner control unit 116 (FIG. 21)).
As to claim 3, (Previously presented) Ghannam, Kamiya, and Pan further teach:
when the at least one unit to be protected is ascertained in the surroundings of the vehicle (Ghannam paragraph [0048] the computer may be programmed to determine whether the object 170a is within the splash zone 180 or Kamiya paragraph [0225] the human sensor 3123 can detect a human that is within 1 meter or Pan paragraph [0025] the human body sensor 31 can accurately detect the approach of nearby people), ascertaining an impairment of the at least one unit to be protected by the cleaning process; and
initiating the cleaning process when the ascertained impairment is negligible or is accepted in order to ensure road safety (Ghannam paragraph [0050] the computer 110 may be programmed actuate the fluid dispenser 240 in the normal mode upon determining that the object 170b is outside the splash zone. If the object 170b is outside of the splash zone, the ascertained impairment is negligible).
As to claim 4, (Previously presented) Ghannam further teaches:
ascertaining a degree of impairment of the at least one unit to be protected by the cleaning process (FIG. 3 the distance d1 of the object 170b to the vehicle 100 is a degree of impairment);
delaying or aborting the initiation of the cleaning process when the ascertained degree of impairment exceeds a threshold value (paragraph [0054] a delayed actuation of fluid dispenser 240 may prevent splashing the object 170a, 170b, e.g., when the vehicle 100 passes by a pedestrian object. If the object is within a distance (e.g. a threshold value), then the action of the fluid dispenser 240 is delayed); and
initiating the cleaning process when the ascertained degree of impairment falls below the threshold value (paragraph [0050] the computer 110 may be programmed to actuate the fluid dispenser 240 in the normal mode upon determining that the object 170b is outside the splash zone).
As to claim 5, (Currently amended) Ghannam and Kamiya further teach the initiation of the cleaning process is delayed by a confirmation prompt of the at least one requesting unit (Ghannam paragraph [0054] a delayed actuation of fluid dispenser 240 may prevent splashing the object 170a, 170b, e.g., when the vehicle 100 passes by a pedestrian object or Kamiya paragraph [0224] the operation of the cleaners is prohibited when a signal indicating that there is a person around the vehicle 1 is input from the human sensor 3123 to the cleaner control unit 116).
As to claim 6, (Currently amended) Ghannam, Kamiya, and Pan further teach the initiation of the cleaning process is delayed by the warning (Ghannam paragraph [0054] a delayed actuation of fluid dispenser 240 may prevent splashing the object 170a, 170b, e.g., when the vehicle 100 passes by a pedestrian object or Kamiya paragraph [0224] the operation of the cleaners is prohibited when a signal indicating that there is a person around the vehicle 1 is input from the human sensor 3123 to the cleaner control unit 116 or Pan paragraphs [0024]-[0025] the alarm device includes a human body sensor 31, the signal processor, the electromagnet 331, and the transmission component 33 which are communicatively connected. When the human body sensor 31 detects a human signal, the alarm is powered on and the spraying is stopped).
As to claim 7, (Currently amended) Ghannam and Pan further teach initiating the delayed cleaning process based on a cleaning schedule at a later time or when the vehicle is a predetermined distance from the at least one unit to be protected (Ghannam paragraph [0054] the computer 110 may be programmed to determine a delay time, e.g. 3 seconds, based on a location of the detected object 170a or Pan paragraph [0025] when the pedestrian is out of the detection range, the vehicle will resume spraying).
As to claim 8, (Previously presented) Ghannam further teaches checking the surroundings of the vehicle based on the received measurement data with respect to the at least one unit to be protected (paragraph [0061] in decision block 410, the computer 110 determines whether an object 170a, 170b is detected exterior to the vehicle) in the form of a pedestrian, a road user, a two- wheeler rider, sensors of road users, sensors of infrastructure units, infrastructure sections, buildings, interiors of buildings, parking garages, and electrical installations in the surroundings of the vehicle (paragraph [0043] the objects 170a, 170 may include pedestrians, motorcycles, bicycles, a convertible second vehicle, etc.).
As to claim 9, (Previously presented) Ghannam further teaches generating control commands using the control unit to initiate the cleaning process (paragraph [0029] the computer 110 can execute instructions stored in the memory to perform various operations including the cleaning operation); and
transmitting the generated control commands directly or indirectly to at least one actuator of a cleaning system (paragraphs [0041]-[0042] the computer 110 can actuate an actuator 265 to control the flow of air and the computer 110 can actuate a washer actuator 280 to control the flow of washer fluid).
As to claim 10, (Currently amended) Ghannam and Pan further teach initiating the cleaning process immediately when no unit to be protected is ascertained in the surroundings of the vehicle or no impairment of the at least one unit to be protected by the cleaning process is ascertained (Ghannam FIG. 4A paragraph [0061] if the computer 110 does not detect an object 170a, 170b, the process proceeds to block 425. Paragraph [0064] in block 425, the computer 110 actuates the fluid dispenser 240 in the normal mode. or Pan paragraph [0025] when the pedestrian is out of the detection range, the vehicle will resume spraying).
As to claim 11, (Previously presented) Ghannam teaches a controller configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (paragraph [0059] the computer 110 may be programmed to execute blocks of the process 400).
As to claim 12, (Previously presented) Ghannam teaches a vehicle system (FIG. 1 paragraph [0028] vehicle 100), comprising:
a control unit according to claim 11 (paragraph [0059] the computer 110 may be programmed to execute blocks of the process 400); and
at least one automated cleaning system for at least one vehicle-side surroundings sensor (paragraph [0040] fluid dispenser 240).
As to claim 14, (New) Ghannam, Kamiya, and Pan do not expressly teach detecting a performance of maintenance work on the vehicle; and suppressing the initiation of the cleaning process during the detected maintenance work. However, it would have been obvious that if a vehicle were receiving maintenance work, a driver/operator would be capable of detecting the maintenance work and would not use the control unit to initiate the cleaning process. As there is no particular device performing the detecting, Examiner is determining that a driver/operator would be capable of detecting the performance of maintenance work.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghannam et al. U.S. Publication 2019/0241158 (henceforth referred to as Ghannam), Kamiya et al. U.S. Publication 2020/0207312 (henceforth referred to as Kamiya) and Pan CN210507283 (henceforth referred to as Pan) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Rice U.S. Publication 2019/0135239 (henceforth referred to as Rice).
As to claim 15, (New) Ghannam, Kamiya, and Pan differ from the instant claim in failing to teach ascertaining an expected amount of waste water that would be generated by the cleaning process and reach the surroundings of the vehicle; wherein initiating of the modified cleaning process is further based on the ascertained expected amount of waste water reaching the surroundings.
Rice teaches a vehicle system for cleaning sensors (paragraph [0020] method for cleaning a sensor of an autonomous vehicle). Rice teaches ascertaining an expected amount of waste water that would be generated by the cleaning process and reach the surroundings of the vehicle (paragraph [0057] the system and method can allow for a reduced amount of fluid to be used to clean the surface of the sensor by tailoring the spray pattern to the type of debris deposited. By reducing the fluid amount, there would be less waste water that would be generated); wherein initiating of the modified cleaning process is further based on the ascertained expected amount of waste water reaching the surroundings (paragraph [0057] by identifying the type of debris deposited on a sensor and determining a corresponding spray pattern based on the debris type, the amount of fluid used to delaminate debris from the sensor can be reduced).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaning process as taught by Ghannam, Kamiya, and Pan with a way to ascertain the amount of waste water as taught by Rice. By determining the amount of expected waste water (through the identification of the type of debris), the amount of fluid can be reduced to allow for more efficient cleaning of the sensor (paragraph [0057]). Through efficient cleaning of the sensor, less fluid would be wasted and less fluid would be released to the surroundings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no motivation to combine Ghannam, Kamiya, or Pan with a reference wherein initiating the modified cleaning process comprises carrying out the cleaning process with at least one of (i) a reduced water input compared with a normal cleaning mode, and (ii) a reduced number of activated cleaning nozzles compared with the normal cleaning mode, so as not to impair the at least one unit to be protected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN G ORTA whose telephone number is (703)756-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.G.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights